they can't prove whether the d.n.a. was from his hand or from saliva washing his hands or his mouth the play are not men so you have these black women who are trying to avoid the surveillance the overt surveillance that comes with navigating the systems that they have to in order to survive and being told that there will fair queens and also being told that they are lazy when in reality black we have black women equal pay day tomorrow and we know that black women are drastically underpaid and especially in cities like chicago or most of them have to work in survival economies and continuously see themselves criminalized and placed in jail instead of their communities and this includes black trans communities and their communities getting the resources that they need from really completely marginalized surely what were your thoughts on this couple of about a minute after ten o'clock. so it serves none of us to tell a single story about the impact of violence or any kind of violence in the black
community right so a story that says that yes black men and boys are disproportionately victims of violence in this city we should say that and we have a duty to make sure that the story of police violence is about them killing us and it is also about them raping us it is about them harassing us is the policing that black women and girls experience when they go to the public aid office when they go to the hospital to the abortion clinic it's all of those things that aren't reflected in those numbers of killings and in all reality the killing of the physical body is absolutely a killing and the killing of the spirit is another type of killing and that all matters so we got to tell a more complete story about what's happening to black people in chicago and across this country and frankly around the world from chicago to south africa where women are fighting right now to in sexual violence and as long as we tell an incomplete story we're going to have incomplete solutions so once we start telling the full
story of what's happening to our people we can have much better solutions that's so well both of you thank you so much i mean this is a there's a lot of work and i think honestly it's interesting that it's three women having this conversation was ultimately it coming does fall to us to sort of take up that mantle and be those community leaders thank you so much charlene carruthers the national director of the y.p. one hundred and that hampton community organizer with the one hundred thank you both so much for sitting down with us today thank you for having us. as we go to break watchers don't forget to let us know what you think for topics we've covered on facebook and twitter poll shows at archie dot com coming up tyrell ventura my co-host joins us from new york city where he spoke with award winning journalist not to tell you about the drone war stay tuned to watching the.
first. of all there's a little moving toward a show don't get all so diageo journalists as they. come across the much hushed. and still of the likely kooky tell you. that. nearly triple a full blown around eight hundred eighty two there were only it to most bridget does a little but drops some of the sheen young girl. was right. in one must look to. for me that's the truth of. the weirdness but it's a rhythm. that they were in the breast is rooted fortunately that was the most gruesome yes general to me birds. all the time just as you might want to smile
have a right to due process to face your accusers and make them prove your guilt in the court of law and while the system is filled with imperfections and injustices these basic tenets are what we fundamentally try to adhere to unless it's the us drone assassination program then apparently all bets are off started under the bush administration horrifically escalated during the obama administration and then put into overdrive now with trump in the white house the u.s. drone assassination program is the judge jury and executioner in the u.s. war on terror even even if you're a us citizen yes the united states government has on purpose not by accident actively killed its own citizens overseas by drone strike so what is a citizen to do if they suddenly find themselves on a u.s. kill list after having already been targeted at least one at least five different occasions that is the question posed in
a recent rolling stone article by award winning journalist mattei e.b. who i sat down with earlier today here in new york city to talk about the important case of the lao abdul karim an american citizen and controversial journalist in syria who believes he is on the u.s. drone assassination kill list and is now suing the u.s. government i started by asking matt what drew him to this incredible story. you know i've been following drone stories for a while i've been looking for a way to write about this because i think it's kind of and unexamined issue in american life we sort of briefly after nine eleven there was this moment where we decided kind of collectively that we're going to start assassinating people around the world a week after nine eleven we passed a law allowing ourselves to do that and then the public kind of forgot about it and suddenly i saw that there was this lawsuit last year that involved an american citizen who was going to court because he said he had been bombed five times and
the implications of this lawsuit are enormous there's already been one drone assassination that we know of involving an american that's on mar a lockie but this case if it were to either be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds or if you were to lose it would essentially sanctify state assassination of an american citizen without due process which i thought was an extraordinary story about. where the constitution is where our relationship to due process is and you know in this age of us only thinking about one thing about the trope this was an incredible story that i think was getting under cover and other because it's one of those stories the in this case is going to have deep impact on the car on that part of the country far longer than donald trump and all that because this is the grown assassination programs were going on now for three straight presidencies it's not just one guy or one your administration what is the
u.s. government's argument in the case of how do they justify or you know how do they justify say you know that we're targeting this guy or if they even admit that so that was the fascinating thing for me i went to the hearing the court hearing and what they argued in court was we're not saying one way or the other if he is on a kill list but if he is on a kill list he does not have standing. to come to this court and asked to be removed from it so they essentially acknowledge in court that we do have a kill list which we call the disposition matrix. and they do target people for what they call lethal action. but that the government argues in court that even an american citizen does not have standing to come to court and asked to be removed if they are in a list their argument is essentially this is it's like
a wartime decision. it's outside where they call it the ship will which is outside the purview of court so they're essentially creating the whole second legal system which would exist in a gray area outside of what we typically think of is the law and and it's a subtle and difficult thing for i think for ordinary people to understand what they're doing they're not saying we want to make this legal we want to what they're saying is we. i want to make this a place that we can't talk about in court oh that's frightening it's very it's orwellian and it's crazy and i and i think reporters are kind of dropping the ball it just because they don't they don't really get what the government is doing it's right it's of it's a very extreme thing and while it's also interesting too is how u.s. judges and courts before this case kind of essential just acquiesced whatever the government you know argument the pentagon of the government would give in terms of
the drone kill list i remember that even came up with a walkie and then a sixteen year old son was also you know shot or. you know why is that the you think the judges are kind of stepping in i mean they are one of the branches that's supposed to counteract the other two branches and you know in the legal sense why are they stopping and why are they kind of saying ok we do need to make this you can't just have this out of bounds in some mysterious place that i think until this case and this is an interesting case because they have a living petitioner who is an american citizen with constitutional rights the judge actually called bill all of the karim the one with rights in in the colloquy. the other cases all involve foreigners who has legal standing with questionable in an american court and the government makes this very aggressive if not persuasive argument that we're the only people who are really qualified to to make
the determination that we need to do this because because counterterrorism is such a difficult and immediate business where you have to make split second decisions we're the only ones who can make that call and judges over and over again have said yes and that in the doctrine here is called political question. essentially they're saying that this is this is a political question it's not the purview of the courts to look at. but now this judge recently made the decision but they are going to look at it this judge for the first time in what was a very big victory for civil libertarians said at the very least we're going to hear the case. is that they said we don't win we're not saying that the all of the cream is out to kill us it should be removed we want to hear this out we're going to go to court about this we can't just kick out this case involving an american citizen which was a huge victory. and a really interesting moment in american legal history i think what did where do you
get the other you know actually it strikes me too is that the interesting thing about the leo was is that. you know he's controversial you know journalist but norton max blumenthal you know basically the he's an al qaeda propagandist in syria but yet he's worked with c.n.n. he's worked with these other you know major news organizations of covered syria you know i think a lot of people would kind of like hearing the weird world that this guy inhabits would be like well so why is or if he's on the kill list is on the kill is to must have done something to deserve it and that kind of argument that you hear over and over again. but you know why is that important not to dismiss him regardless of who you know we have to pay attention to his case. regardless of who years think think of the ramifications of of that. thought process if you have then there are a lot of people who are who will say i mean i talked to a lot of people about global korean and that and there is
a wide spectrum of opinions if you watch it on t.v. he's got this incredibly charming engaging manner but he holds some beliefs that a lot of people would find extremely repugnant. and he has sympathy for a lot of you know known terrorists. but is the question the question becomes is he just doing coverage that paints you know isis or al qaida sympathetic figures in a positive light or is he actively part of some kind of process that is plotting a terrorist act and that's a massive distinction right because if it's just the journalism and we're killing people for that then think about what precedent that sets that's why it's important or stand and how did they come to this conclusion because there's from what we know about this program it could be for a variety of reasons they kill by metadata now they have algorithmic processes that say essentially like if this person's phone number is in the wrong place too many
times we might be on the list because of that so that's why we need to know we need to know one way or the other and they say that's the reason that's what human is legal team believe is the reason that he's being targeted because of it's literally them out of data that he thinks it's because he's talked to the wrong people too many times he for instance both interviewed and visited a character name for us all sori who was drawn to death in two thousand and sixteen . and so he you know bill al said to me you know they can definitely save you in my cell phone was and in proximity to his cell phone so you know there's that on on his on this. as a check mark against him but is that the reason like that's what we need to know that's why we have the fifth amendment is to find out how did you get to the point of accusing you of this crime and we were it's all supposed to be done in the open well it's due process rights you know there was this archaic thing what was going to zero innocent until proven great that to go down to that area if you do believe
the man is a terrorist and you do believe that what he's doing news is you know. potentially bringing a threat to american people or whatever then you bring him to trial he's a us citizen arrest him ship him back here we're going to trial rather than just drone killing him i mean that's the thing that really frightens me about this and the incredibly scary thing about this is that yes we're i'm looking at this case now a lot of people are looking at this case now but that he's just one of thousands of people that we've made calls on about this this program are going on for a while now and the people who've been following this you know we make decisions about non americans all the time and it's completely unclear what what the rationale is for how we decide who is a terrorist and it's very clear abundantly clear that we make a lot of mistakes you know one study showed that targeting just forty one men in pakistan afghanistan and that we ended up killing one thousand one hundred forty
seven people so it's essentially a twenty to one ratio of mistakes which makes you wonder a lot about the program. you know i see something like that it's either the gross incompetence and just not caring about foreign lives and no u.s. lives or its haid you know we got to keep the terrorism machine feeding because everybody that you kill with a u.s. drone is going to probably blame the u.s. for it but yeah i mean it's an it's an endless vicious cycle blowing himself makes this case that you know every time you do this you're creating a new batch of people that you have to then target and so. that is why this program i think went from being you know the original authorization only gave the government permission to target people who were actually involved with planning nine eleven and the first drone attacks were after people who had been involved in the cole bombing but it's expanded since then. to this whole galaxy of characters in countries that had nothing to do with nine eleven. two we're targeting people
who weren't even born on nine eleven so it's mission creep when there's no oversight that's what happens you know the people this just start to push the edge of the envelope a little bit and things get bigger. did you know that over ninety percent of sea turtle eggs are at risk of poaching and considering a scant one percent of eggs will even reach maturity the future of sea turtles is kind of high risk but a group of researchers with a comp conservation group possible pacific have come up with a way to take down poachers once and for all fake turtle eggs equipped with g.p.s. trackers that's right the group works hard with three d. printers in with the help of a hollywood makeup artist to make the eggs so believable amongst realize that poachers would take them then once the poacher steals the egg the groups can literally track the poachers and hopefully and the poaching for good so let's shell
of the hard work being done around the world to save the oceans most important residents are right that's our show for you today remember everyone as michael was tired of and for a fight said in this world we're not overlapped enough and so i tell you i love you take care of each other out there i'm tabitha wallace keep on watching those shots and have a great day and night everyone. this is. the church secret indeed just like priests accused of sexually abusing children can get away with it literally like to call this the geographic solution. what the bishop needs to do then he finds out the priest says there's
a purpose for it is simply moves him to a different spot where the previous standard is not. highest ranks of the catholic church help conceal the accused priests from the police and justice system did that it does not get as the. case for. the americans are still in shock they're still dealing with the psychological damage in nine eleven they still need enemies they still unjustified they still are having troubles walking through it meanwhile the rest the world is going ahead. for.
my. twitter is accused of double standards after banning an activist for offensive comments against black people even though i don't treat against whites went unchallenged. info was popular on controversial alternative news websites has been banned by leading social media platforms for what they have called hate speech. on the head of a visit by the international chemical weapons watchdog to the english town of amesbury next week the media continues to speculate on the poisoning case.
extradite suspects. for joining us this is our international. change the word white to black or jewish and you could find yourself in trouble on twitter and support one conservative activist in the u.s. confirmed as she tried to highlight the platform's alleged double standards as the story. candace owens she's from turning points usa conservative organization in the usa what she did was she took tweets from new york times journalist sarah job and simply replaced the words white with the words black or the word jewish the response of twitter was to shut down her account candace owens says that twitter was right to take down her posts and ban her for making hateful comments regarding
black and jewish people she says however the outrage is that sarah johnson was not banned for making these comments about white people on the surface i actually agree with tweeter twitter is assessment i believe that what i said what i tweeted was wrong you should not be able to tweet about any race or any group that you want them canceled that they should live underground i don't know why suddenly people think that white people are excluded from that scenario that people can't be racist towards white people when in fact they often are the problem with the new york times essentially saying shinning her behavior is that they are signaling to the rest of the world that racism actually is ok as long as you pick the right race this was candice owens first statement to her followers after the ban twitter not only reinstated her account but actually apologized and said that it was a mistake for her to be banned now immediately there was a firestorm with people pointing to what they see as
a double standard by the way as you go. tweets i'm replacing wants with blank i'm in tweets of bones that i was double standard every time i see one of these i can't help substitute black for white can't is so stupid i will never understand the double standard why it's acceptable to so many now the wikipedia page of the new york times journalist is also in question now the page simply describes her as a journalist and has minimal contact regarding the controversy surrounding her tweets it appears that has there. has now been added a small reference to it but these tweets the controversy surrounding them seems to be quite a big issue we could pedia seems to make efforts to minimize that lot of debate yet another example of how in the united states when it comes to issues of race and free speech and americans just don't see eye to eye the new york times issued a statement defending its decision to hire sarah junk it said that she'd simply use
the same language as online harasses did to respond to them. so they were meant to be satirical following news of a twitter suspension activist candice owens was confronted on the streets by the fascist protesters. i am. was having breakfast with another conservative activist colleague when they were harassed by protesters demonstrators could be seen shouting abuse as they crowded around police were quickly on the scene. best of journalist dave lindorff believes if this is the way that twitter tackles hate speech it's not working. they didn't and one thing it banned another that was just the substitution of words and they look really stupid for doing it so. they made a hash of it. trained so all the problem that made it worse they really need to think this through and. jump in when there's
a screaming match from one side or the other and they'll jump to try to stop it quickly with a stupid decision they need to really sit back think through policy and then operate according to a policy that is rational coherent and consistent and that hardly what they're doing right now one of the most popular online alternative news channels in for was to seen a major crackdown with facebook the cheap apple and spotify blocking its accounts and taking down its content all on the same day is a facebook explained to me we've taken it down for glorifying violence and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender muslims and immigrants which violates our hate speech policies in four walls was launched by alex jones in the late one nine hundred ninety s. easy cheap videos to be more small the one point six billion times some deem him a peddler of conspiracy theories and twenty fifteen donald trump appeared on the
channel and praised jones's work people on social media meanwhile have clashed over the bat. i don't support alex jones or what in four wars produces he's not a conservative however banning him in his outlets is wrong it's not just a slippery slope it's a dangerous cliff apple removing alex jones him in for worse isn't some terrible form of censorship against conservatives he said sandy hook wasn't real he's seeing parents from the school he said the holocaust wasn't real his not just a conservative his a conspiracy theorist hurts people in four wars it has been banned by facebook for and specified hate speech regardless of the facts in this case there bill it's a face book to censor viable publishers is a global anti trust problem. political commentator jean allowed to believe the decision could prove damaging for social media giants whether or not you agree with alex jones i would be just the same amount of adamant that i think it's bad policy
to ban people no matter what really no matter what i mean in the united states we have a concept of free speech that we love very much it means a lot to us now these are private companies they can do what they want to do i'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this and i'm certainly not saying that government should regulate whether or not private companies can make decisions like this but i am saying i think it's a bad decision and i think that in the long run it will not pay off for these companies it is an extremely slippery slope i do believe ultimately that probably some conservative it's a t. will come up with competitive platforms for the ones that are doing the banning and the censoring and ultimately they will have stiff competition that may even relegate them to relative obscurity because of things like this especially if they remain so one sided. u.s. sanctions against iran which have just come into force have seen oil prices spike
to predicting the trend will continue and with the u.s. preparing more sanctions iran's second largest trading partner that it's ready to protect european companies that are doing business with iran we are determined to protect european economic are preterists in legitimate business with iran this is why your opinions updated blocking statute enters into force under seven of august to protect e.u. companies doing legitimate business with iran from the mpact of u.s. extraterritorial sanctions we believe that it is and it has to be to the europeans in this case to decide with home to trade. first round of sanctions prohibits around from using the u.s. dollar and restricts trading in precious metals it also includes limiting iranian currency flows as well as constraints on the car trade former u.s. congressman ron paul believes the new sanctions might harm washington's economic
and. one problem is that the united states is still pretty powerful they have the currency for the reserve currency of the world powerful currency powerful military a lot of wealth and we can throw our weight around so even if the europeans feel put upon and attacked by these sanctions that we put on iran i think they they need to get some backbone bush see shortly whether the europeans stick to their guns if they back down then they're going to be you know around for a while but if they stick to their guns i think united states would have to adjust their policies a bit because how are they going to enforce that you know if china and russia and other countries and if they do business with iran what are we going to put more sanctions on russia you know we continue to do that but eventually that runs out of steam the other countries are going to not tolerate what we have done. now
understand the still not been any proof presented public it publicly at least of the russian attacks on us democracy that we used to justify the sanctions bill how does that would how is it being perceived by the warmongers the people who want sanctions that they're really in charge with our media and they have really basic control you know in the congress just out of the clear blue they have no evidence whatsoever of their charges that they have made and you know i look at the world like none of us are perfect all the countries have their shortcomings but i think the responsibility for sure common issues be their own country this idea of just blaming other countries and it's all somebody else's fault and what we have to do is put on sanctions and then when they retaliate we think oh the world's coming to an end they don't have a right to do that we have to punish them i mean it's a very very bad foreign policy. took over the streets of chicago this weekend.